So also in cases upon contracts, of which the consideration is not pecuniary in its na ture, mental suffering has been treated as a proper basis for damages. Exceptions to the general rule upon this footing are, breach of promise of marriage ; Sherman v. Raw son, 102 Mass. 395 ; Bird v. Thompson, 96 Mo. 424, 9 S. W. 788 ; Reed v. Clark, 47 Cal. 194; Sauer v. Schulenberg, 33 Md. 288, 3 Am. Rep. 174 ; breach of an undertaker's contract to keep safely the body of a child ; Renihan v. Wright, 125 Ind. 536, 25 N. E. 822, 9 L. R. A. 514, 21 Am. St. Rep. 249 ; and so also in case of an action by a wife against a railroad company for negligence in trans porting her husband's body ; Hale v. Bon ner, 82 Tex. 33, 17 S. W. 605, 14 L. R. A. 336, 27 Am. St. Rep. 850 ; and by one arrested for failure to appear as a witness by reason of negligence of a policeman in signing in blank a warrant of arrest containing a false recital of service of subpoena on the witness ; Gibney v. Lewis, 68 Conn. 392, 36 Atl. 799 ; injury to a passenger's feelings caused by in sulting language of its employees on the ground of breach of its contract to transport passengers respectfully and courteously ; Gil lespie v. R. Co., 178 N. Y. 347, 70 N. E. 857, 66 L. R. A. 618, 102 Am. St. Rep. 503 ; injury to a wife's feelings caused by drunken men using obscene language on a railroad car ; Houston E. & W. T. R. Co. v. Perkins, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 508, 52 S. W. 124 ; breach of contract to transport a corpse ; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Hull, 113 Ky. 561, 68 S. W. 433, 57 L. R. A. 771; but where the breach con sists in the negligence of the company's agents causing a delay in the funeral ar rangements, and there is no' wilful or mali cious misconduct, damages for mental an guish cannot be recovered ; Beaulieu v. R. Co., 103 Minn. 47, 114 N. W. 353, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 564, 14 Ann. Cas. 462 ; failure to transmit promptly money sent to secure the forwarding of a daughter's corpse ; Cumber land Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Quigley, 129 Ky. 788, 112 S. W. 897, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 575 ; but a man cannot recover damages for a carrier's delay in delivering baggage to his intended wifef which causes the postpone ment of the wedding ; Eller v. Railroad, 140 N. C. 140, 52 S. E. 305, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 225, 6 Ann. Cas. 46.
Mental suffering accompanying physical pain is a subject of compensation ; 4 Q. B. Div. 406 ; Wade v. Leroy, 20 How. (TJ. S.) 34, 15 L. Ed. 813 ; Carpenter v. R. Co., 39 Fed. 315 ; South & N. A. R. Co. v. McLendon, 63 Ala. 266 ; City & Suburban Ry. v. Findley, 76 Ga. 311; Alexander v. Humber, 86 Ky. 565, 6 S. W. 453 ; Kendall v. City of Albia, 73 Ia. 241, 34 N. W. 833 ; Smith v. Holcomb, 99 Mass. 552 ; Matteson v. R. Co., 62 Barb. (N. Y.) 364 ; the, two cannot be disassociat ed; Kennon v. Gilmer, 131 U. S. 22, 9 Sup. Ct. 696, 33 L. Ed. 110 ; Montgomery & E. Ry. Co. v. Mallette, 92 Ala. 210, 9 South. 363. So is fright caused by apprehension of physical harm ; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Whitman, 79 Ala. 328; contra, 13 A C. 222 ; or nervous shock produced by a false report of a hus band's injury ; [1897] 2 Q. B. 57 ; Kendall v. City of Albia, 73 Ia. 241, 34 N. W. 833 ; but see Spade v. R. Co., 168 Mass. 285, 47 N. E. 88, 38 L. R. A. 512, 60 Am. St. Rep. 393 ; so loss of peace of mind and happiness ; Cox v. Vanderkleed, 21 Ind. 164 ; sense of insult or indignity, mortification or wounded pride ; Quigley v. R. Co., 5 Sawy. 107, Fed. Cas. No. 11,510 ; Ward v. Blackwood, 48 Ark. 396, 3 S. W. 624 ; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Whit man, 79 Ala. 328; Pennsylvania R. Co. v.
Connell, 112 Ill. 295, 54 Am. Rep. 238 ; sense, of shame and humiliation ; Barbour v. Ste
phenson, 32 Fed. 66 ; Hatch v. Fuller, 131 Mass. 574 ; Simons v. Busby, 119 Ind. 13, 21 N. E. 451; Craker v. Ry. Co., 36 Wis. 657, 17 Am. Rep. 504.
Damages for such injuries need not be specially pleaded, but may be proved under a general allegation of bodily injury ; Den ver & R. G. R. Co. v. Roller, 100 Fed. 738, 41 C. C. A. 22, 49 L. R. A. 77 ; and likewise dam ages for humiliation resulting from disfigure ment due to the loss of an eye ; United States Exp. Co. v. Wahl, 168 Fed. 848, 94 C. C. A. 260 ; contra, Diamond Rubber Co. v. Harry man, 41 Colo. 415, 92 Pac. 922, where it was held that there could be no damages for a shortening of the plaintiff's leg due to ac cidental injury.
Fright alone is not, in the absence of per sonal injury, a ground of recovery ; Ewing v. R. Co., 147 Pa. 40, 23 Atl. 340, 14 L. R. A. 666, 30 Am. St. Rep. 709 ; Johnson v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 6 Nev. 224, 3 Am. Rep. 245; Haile's Curator v. Ry. Co., 60 Fed. 557, 9 C. C. A. 134, 23 L. R. A. 774 ; Chicago, R. I. & T. Ry. Co. v. Hitt (Tex.) 31 S. W. 1084 ; Den ver & R. G. R. Co. v. Roller, 100 Fed. 738, 41 C. C. A. 22, 49 L. R. A. 77 ; Hess v. Mfg. Co., 221 Pa. 67, 70 Atl. 294; though it produced a miscarriage ; Mitchell v. R. Co., 151 N. Y. 107, 45 N. E. 354, 34 L. R. A. 781, 56 Am. St. Rep. 604 ; contra, Barbee v. Reese, 60 Miss. 906 ; Oliver v. Town of La Valle, 36 Wis. 596 ; Hill v. Kimball, 76 Tex. 210, 13 S. W. 59, 7 L. R. A. 618 ; [1901] 2 K. B. 669, where Mitchell v. R. Co. was criticised and disap proved. See 14 L. R. A. 666, n.
The rule in 13 App. Cas. 222, was that "damages arising from mere sudden terror, unaccompanied by any actual physical inju ry, but occasioning a nervous or mental shock, cannot be considered a consequence which in the ordinary course would flow from the negligence of the gatekeeper" (who invited the plaintiff and his wife to cross the track when a train was approaching), This was doubted in [1896] 2 Q. B. 248; disap proved in 26 L. R. Ir. 428; and not followed in [1901] 2 K. B. 669. It has been criticised by Pollock, Sedgwick, and Seven.
A wife cannot recover for the death of her husband from shock of an explosion ; Hus ton v. Freemansburg Borough, 212 Pa. 548, 61 Atl. 1022, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 49 ; physical in capacity for work due to mental excitement and fright is recoverable under a policy of insurance which provides "absolutely for all accidents however caused" ; [1896] 2 Q. B. 248.
Even in cases where mental suffering prop erly enters into the computation of damages, they are not allowed for such as result from mere disappointment ; Wilcox v. R. Co., 52 Fed. 264, 3 C. C. A. 73, 8 U. S. App. 118 ; Han cock v. Telegraph Co., 137 N. C. 497, 49 S. B. 952, 69 L. R. A. 403; contra, Prescott v.
Robinson, 74 N. H. 460, 69 Atl. 522, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 594, 124 Am. St. Rep. 987, where they were allowed for disappointment of an Injured mother at the birth of a deformed child; or apprehension of danger to one's family; Wyman v. Leavitt, 71 Me. 227; of the result of injury to a child from negli gence; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Trimble, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 335, 28 S. W. 96.
Where as the result of a slight injury there was a radical impairment of the ner vous system and general health, with serious consequences, they were not the ordinary and natural result of the accident but the physical consequences of the fright and no damages could be recovered either for fright or for the physical consequences of it ; Hack v. Dady, 134 App. Div. 253, 118 N. Y. Supp. 906.
See MEASURE OF DAMAGES; DEAD BODY; 12 Mich. L. Rev. 149.